Plato and Aristotle's Notion of Form Paper Example

Plato and Aristotle were philosophers in ancient Greece who critically analyzed matters of politics, science, ethics, and wellbeing among others. Although most of Plato's works endured centuries Aristotle's contributions have with no doubt been more influential, especially when it comes to logical reasoning and science. In the contemporary world, the works by both philosophers are perceived to be less theoretically valuable, but they continue having a substantial historical significance. Plato assumed that every concept held an ideal form, a universal "form," that influenced his idealistic philosophy. Aristotle, on the other hand, maintained that universal forms lacked essential attachment to every concept or object and that every case of an idea or an item had to be individually examined. This perception contributes to Aristotelian Empiricism. For Plato, reasoning and thought experiments would be sufficient in proving a concept or establishing the qualities of the object, but Aristotle dismissed this in favor of direct experience and observation. These perceptions presented issues to be overcome by every philosopher, Aristotle was to give an account of how to know what is going through change whereas Plato had to justify where knowledge could be located; this assumption led the philosophers into having devastating variances in their reasoning as discussed in this paper.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Both Aristotle and Plato applied their meanings of the 'form': with the aim of overcoming their similar issues on knowledge. 'Form' for both philosophes could mean anything. Nevertheless, their exact meaning of form was different. For Plato, Forms are metaphysical bedrocks, the only real things, and instances of any form are primarily cases that share that Form's reality. Hence, the horse that one meets in the field is practical in that it takes part in horsiness - not to mention the body, and other factors.

On the other hand, Aristotle is more mundane. He argues that objects created from materials have an autonomous existence, though they oblige themselves to Forms which are universally binding to some extent. Everything is active by contact with the right form which, for Aristotle, there is celestial implication and a critical cause which influences every phenomenon. To some extent, these differing notions of 'form contribute to more contemporary debates over the metaphysical urgency of purpose and embodiment, in the opposing outlooks of Existentialism and Essentialism (Hjorland 133). As for Plato's forms, he contends that the objects confined in a class are not similar to the group itself. There are several diverse horses, and precisely when we say "horse" it does not mean any specific horse but ascribes "horsiness" to the object in question. Not a single entity in the physical level could be this "perfect horse"; although there is the outset of it that is present in logic.

Consequently, the abstract "perfect horse" is out of space and time and is eternal. Even though there are several horses in the universe; there is only a single phrase "horse" which we apply in describing all of them (Gerasimos 256). On the other hand, Aristotle accuses Plato's universal form as committing a countless lapse with the "third man" dispute yet he still contends that a horse could die, but the abstract horse is eternal. It appears that Aristotle settles on form as substance although his thought moves from 'categories' to the 'metaphysics' (Charles 83).

Another instance of Plato's presentation of the form is the Beauty Particular like Helen being accessible and physical to the wits. Hellen's beauty combined with non-beautiful perspectives and things like body parts show that she might not have the perpetual beauty form in herself (Erick 59). Instead, Plato believes the 'form' of exquisiteness is not open to the sense. Hence it is not tangible, exists out of space and time. Therefore it could only be seen through reason. Aristotle rejected Plato's definition, claiming that it is illogical and unclear since a chair could be seen as a chair because of its association with a 'form' of living outside space and time. In its place, Aristotle's approach to clarifying an entity's'form' is with the purpose of the object, as given by its creator (Lloyd 51). Hence, a chair is a chair since it is intended to act as a chair. This way, an object's form lives within the object as well as every entity created in a similar way and with the same drive. It is therefore not necessary to disengage from this universe to have an understanding of a form as it could be seen and understood on earth. This approaches from the two philosophers help one in knowing an entity while it goes through a change since its change is confined in its determination. For instance, an acorn has the chance of becoming an oak tree give there are no interferences. The change that it is to go through is controlled inside the form's knowledge. This notion turned out to be the roots of Aristotle's teleology (analysis and description of meanings). Aristotle claimed that nature is fruitful in its functions since all things have a purpose: eyes are different regarding how they operate and their structure between species, but the form of the eye is similar, with the aim of seeing (Lloyd 56).

Aristotle and Plato both perceive form as a type of fundamental certainty diffusing daily appearances. For instance, the form "triangle" is a causal commonality which is shared by all triangles, irrespective of the several certain differences in location, width, angles, or color. These philosophers believe that there is something referred to as "triangle" which somehow brings together all triangles, and they believe this form holds some foundation in a real sense, although the two significantly differ in this respect (Erick 182).In any case, Aristotle perceived Plato's assumption as insufficient since he did not see any concrete link between Forms and the practical physical world of materials experienced by humans. Aristotle also believed that the concept of Forms was not able to sufficiently clarify destruction, change, and generation of objects. Here, in arguing against Plato's Parmenidean stand and accepting a more Heraclitan stance, Aristotle proposes that the Forms are impending in objects and not in any other dominion of survival. When adopting change as an open form of certainty, Aristotle found that nothing latent could result in transition without the action of one or the other four causes (efficient, formal, material, and final) (Lloyd 59).

Regarding an over-arching "initial cause" to everything, Aristotle refuted Plato's Form of the Good (the highest in the hierarchy of Super-Form or Plato's Forms) as inappropriate to the human's affairs. Rather, Aristotle argues that the"unmoved mover" as a little illogical, is a distinct type of cause where all other things are produced. In light of this, Aristotle presented his account of hylomorphism of the immaterial and the material, that raises a lot of controversies among theologian researchers for centuries (Lloyd 104).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that the differences between Aristotle and Plato's ideas outweigh their similarities. Nevertheless, they leave questions and gaps in their objections. Plato faces criticisms for being extra selective in his opinions since he needs a lot of time committed to learning. Aristotle contends Plato's idea that forms exist out of space and time since they are not physical entities. Nevertheless, Aristotle's notion of each object having a purpose is also doubtful, since there are instances of things in nature that lack a goal in their existence like the human appendix. Both Aristotle and Plato thus fail to clarify the possibility of chance happenings, and they all trust that everything has an ultimate explanation and truth. The philosophers leave significant gaps in their perception of "form" that leaves them open to criticism.

Nevertheless, their assumptions contribute to the most significant philosophical notions; naturalism and transcendentalism, that enables philosophers in the future to build upon their innovative ideas and review them to accommodate discoveries and information. It is thus necessary to note that in Plato's incomplete discussion, he drops the argument of the Forms. Although both Plato and Aristotle apply "form" in understanding objects, only Plato holds that it is essential in gaining knowledge, he also believes it is important to disengage from the universe to find an item's form, while Aristotle thinks we need to study the entities and find their purposes. Whatever importance Plato held that knowledge of abstract objects has for the right conduct of philosophy, he does not appear to have assumed that this information is essential for the proper running of human's daily affairs. Undeniably this might seem to be marking an exit not only for the later thought of Aristotle but for the constant tradition of Western philosophy and thought as well down to the present day.

Works Cited

Havelock, Eric A. Preface to Plato. Vol. 1. Harvard University Press, 2009.

Hjorland, Birger. "Empiricism, rationalism, and positivism in the library and information science." Journal of documentation61.1 (2005): 130-155.https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578050

Kahn, Charles H. Plato, and the Socratic dialogue: The philosophical use of a literary form. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Lloyd, Geoffrey Ernest Richard. Aristotle: the growth and structure of his thought. Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Santas, Gerasimos, ed. The Blackwell Guide to Plato's Republic. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.